Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 757 - AT - Income TaxAssessment made u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 153A – Income from salary as well as commission earned from pearls business – Failure to furnish name/address of any other firm on whose behalf commission business in pearls was claimed - Held that:- Following the decision in Anil Kumar Bhatia [2012 (8) TMI 368 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - determination of income in the orders passed in terms of S.153A would be similar to the orders passed in any re-assessment, where the total income determined in the original assessment order and the income that escaped are clubbed together and assessed as total income - As for the quantum of additions sustained by the CIT(A), as for the air-fares, it is based on the fares of the relevant time, the CIT(A) found no justification to tinker with the additions made by the AO on that count - there is no justification for any further relief from out of the additions sustained by the CIT(A) on account of daily expenditure incurred by the assessee for the days spent abroad in each of these years – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds of the assessee on the issue of unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign trips are rejected. Addition of unexplained investment in property – Held that:- There is no evidence as to the person in whose hands the unexplained investment was assessed on substantive basis, the CIT(A) treated the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee, as a substantive one - It is settled principle of law that any income has to be assessed in the hands of right person - the land on which the building was constructed as in the name of assessee’s mother, right person to be assessed in respect of unexplained investment in the construction, was assessee’s mother and not the assessee, and it on this ground only that the AO, has made only protective addition in the assessment of the assessee - merely because the assessee is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, it cannot be said that he is the person in whose hands substantive addition is due - on purchase bills and other papers, often, for the convenience of delivery of material, easy identification etc., instead of exposing the woman, names of head of family or other prominent male members of the family are mentioned. Revenue has not brought on record any clinching evidence, to conclude that the unexplained investment has indeed been made by the assessee only - the view taken by the CIT(A) cannot be upheld in treating the addition made on protective basis by the AO into a substantive one and in confirming the same - If at all, any addition on account of unexplained investment is warranted, it would lie in the assessment of assessee’s mother, who is the actual owner of the land and the constructed property, and not in the hands of the assessee – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|